Appeal No. 2000-1486 Page 10
Application No. 08/968,871
differences would have been obvious based upon the combined
teachings of Lennon, Alston and Homewood. With regard to the
fourth difference noted above, the examiner determined
(answer, p. 4) that it would have been obvious to make the
device of Lennon to "have a closed oval cross section [when in
repose] since it has been held a change of shape of a prior
art device does not present a patentable difference. In re
Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)."
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 5-9; reply brief, pp. 1-
2) that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree. In our view, the combined
teachings of the applied prior art would not have led an
artisan to arrive at the claimed invention. In that regard,
it is our opinion that differences (2) and (4) are not
suggested by the applied prior art. Specifically, we see no
motivation, suggestion or teaching in Alston of the
desirability of making the tubular body member of Lennon to be
formed of foam material shaped for having thin marginal
portions adjacent each end. Additionally, we believe it was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007